lfm@ukc.UUCP (L.Marshall) (01/26/84)
**FLAME ON**
What sheer arrogance!!! Subgroups rock and classical - No other sorts of
music exist then?? What about music.jazz, music.folk, music.blues, music.CandW
etc. etc. etc. Music is Music is Music and personally I read everything that
reaches here (not a lot of it I'm afraid though), so let's not start being
sectarian about it and live with what we've got. ( I bet I hit the 'n'
key more times to skip info about 4.2 in unix-wizards, than anyone does to
skip stuff about classical music!)
**DOUSE FLAME**
Lindsay F. Marshall
uucp : ...!vax135!ukc!lfm
ARPA : Lindsay_Marshall%Newcastle@MIT-MULTICS
post : Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
+44 - 632 - 329233 xtn 212woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (02/03/84)
> What sheer arrogance!!! Subgroups rock and classical - No other sorts of > music exist then?? What about music.jazz, music.folk, music.blues, I wasn't going to post any more articles about this, but since I have been publically accused of having a quality I detest, I must respond. No one ever said other types of music couldn't be discussed. If there is sufficient traffic, I see no reason why we couldn't have net.music.jazz or whatever other type of music has enough volume of discussion to justify a group. In the meantime, discussions about them could go in the parent group, that is what it is for. If I want to discuss bowling, I don't complain that there is no net.rec.bowling, I post my article in net.rec . The only reason I singled out rock and classical is because they generate *far* more articles than anything else, *not* because I believe they are somehow more worthy of discussion. GREG -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno} !hao!woods